linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/95] 4.9.96-stable review

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:23:11 -0500
From:   Dan Rue <dan.rue@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/95] 4.9.96-stable review

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:26:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:25:53PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > I made a few comments inline regarding the reported failures. Also, as
> > this report is pushing 200 lines now with all of our tests and
> > environments (about 8*22 test runs), I'm planning on making some changes
> > in the next few weeks to make it more concise and useful. Any
> > suggestions or feature requests are most welcome.
> 
> How about only reporting problems?  Having tests "pass" is the norm and
> should always happen, right?  That would make the reports smaller.

I agree, though I would like to provide a bit of context so that people
new to the process have some idea about testing breadth and depth - but
it should be a few lines, rather than the hundreds that we have now.

Dan